10.58am:Occupy London activists camped outside St Paul's Cathedral are due to find out today whether they will be evicted from the site they have occupied since October.

Mr Justice Lindblom is due to hand down judgment in the high court at 2pm, following a five-day hearing before Christmas on the legal status of the camp in the lee of St Paul's in the City of London.

Caroline Davies will be down at the court and reporting and tweeting from there, David Shariatmadari will be at St Paul's talking to the protesters, and I'll be live blogging proceedings from here.

Legal action was brought by the City of London Corporation, which claimed that the Occupy London Stock Exchange (LSX) camp – a protest against the banking system and the government's response to the financial crisis – was attracting vulnerable people, and there were concerns about sanitation, safety and vandalism. The Corporation says there is an "overwhelming" case for the court to grant orders for possession and injunctions against Occupy London because of the impact of the camp on the area around the cathedral.

Their lawyers argued they were not seeking to prevent lawful and peaceful protest or lawful assembly in the general location - but the right to protest enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights did not justify a semi-permanent campsite on the public highway - particularly in a location like St Paul's.

John Cooper QC, for Occupy LSX, claimed the camp's impact had been exaggerated. Lawyers for the protesters said that the case raised an issue of "extreme public importance" and that freedom of expression was a liberty which ought to be guarded by the courts. The camp did not prevent worship at St Paul's and any impact it did have on on those visiting, walking through or working in the vicinity was not solely detrimental, they argued.

They said that politicians, members of the public and commentators had expressed support for the camp's presence and the sentiments behind it, at a time when there was a consensus that the issues it raised needed addressing.

St Paul's did not join the legal action, but Nicholas Cottam, the cathedral registrar, described acts of "desecration" and falling visitor numbers due to the "unpleasantness of the camp and presence of the media".

If the camp is evicted, an online campaign has called for supporters to form a ring of prayer in solidarity while others are calling for non-violent resistance, Caroline reports.

12.03pm: It's worth watching this Channel 4 News feature on a visit to the Occupy London camp by Alan Moore, whose 1982 comic V for Vendetta inspired the Guy Fawkes mask worn by many Occupy protesters around the world.

Face to face with two protesters wearing the mask as the bells of St Paul's toll behind them, he tells them: "It's a bit surprising when some of your characters who you thought you'd made up suddenly seem to have escaped into ordinary reality."

And he tells Channel 4 News:

I'm amazed, I'm very impressed and I'm rather touched. The people here are amazing. I think this is probably the best organised and most forward-thinking protest that I've ever had experience of.

And he says there is "a strong strand of anarchy that runs through nearly all of the important characters in British culture".

12.07pm: Caroline DeLaney of law firm Kingsley Napley gives her view of the importance of today's hearing:

The removal of protesters has become costly, time-consuming and complex. The law is currently a patchwork of criminal and civil remedies which are applied inconsistently and reform of this area of law is long overdue.

Today's judgment will need to have taken account of the human right to protest balanced against the public right to use the highway. It is highly likely the losing party will appeal. Indeed if other protester situations are anything to go by we can expect this dispute to drag on for some time to come.

12.18pm:On their website, Occupy London invite their supporters to gather outside the Royal Courts of Justice from 1.30pm today. "Bring your banners, bring your gusto," they say.

They plan to hold a press conference outside the court straight after the judgment.

12.57pm: No matter which way today's judgment goes, it is unlikely to be the end of the story. Occupy London say they are certain to appeal if they lose, while a spokesman for the Corporation of London said the local authority would wait to see what the judge actually says before deciding - because what he says in his judgment would be important when making that decision.

1.32pm:On the New Statesman website, Laurie Penny has posted an interesting article about the gap between the goals and behaviour of "the more media-savvy organisers of Occupy London" and "the waifs and strays and nuts and eccentrics, the wide-eyed young men with theories about how computers can calculate the perfect democracy, the straggle-haired women with bags full of paintbrushes and dirt in the creases of their cheeks" who have joined their camps outside St Paul's, in Finsbury Square, and in their "Bank of Ideas" just north of the City.

In London, some of the cleaner activists I meet, including those who have been involved in organising the camps from the start, quietly express the opinion that eviction might now be the best thing that could happen to the occupations …

The main bone of contention is not drugs, but direction. Some activists are unhappy that Occupy London has chosen to work so closely with the Church on whose ground they have been camped for three months; others believe that movement has been taken over by external lobby groups with their own agendas. Still others are concerned that the general assemblies are choosing to focus ... on "the legal thing". The camp has spent much of its remaining energy fighting running battles to keep the sites open, and occupiers in the legal working groups hope to set a precedent in English case law to protect protesters' rights to free expression under article 10 of the European convention on human rights.

1.37pm: Occupy London supporters are gathering outside the high court ahead of the ruling on whether they will be evicted from the lee of St Paul's, my colleague Caroline Davies reports.

Giles Fraser, the former canon chancellor of St Paul's who resigned over the church's dispute with the protesters, is here in "solidarity", he told Caroline.

One supporter said: "Whatever the ruling, it's not the end. This is a fluid movement."

They have tied a huge banner reading "Occupied Justice" to the railings of the high court, Caroline reports.

1.51pm: At St Paul's, my colleague David Shariatmadari has been speaking to Occupy protesters.

Phil, 27 from Poland, been at the camp since October:

If they decide to evict us they'll know they're doing the wrong thing.

Mark, 52:

Whatever the judgment is, we've won. Because we've made the point about bankers' greed. The whole country knows they've acted criminally.

Angela, a disabled protester:

I'll feel very angry if the judgment goes against us. I'm very concerned about what's happening to disabled people, with cuts to our benefits. People who think this is an eyesore are not living in the real world - they think they're immune but we will all need help at some point in our lives and that's why I'm here. I feel privileged to be able to come down here. The vast majority of people here aren't interested in disturbing the life of the church or disrupting things.

@ Royal Courts of Justice for Occupy judgment. Whatever happens, the voice of protest must continue to be heard.

2.00pm: There are three defendants representing Occupy London, Caroline Davies reports: Tammy Samede (the main defendant), George Barda, and Daniel Ashman.

Caroline says there are around 100 people packed into a "very small courtroom and public gallery in [the] bowels of [the] high court". Around 20 people are standing. "Some judges don't like that. We'll see what judge Lindblom says when he comes in," she writes.

2.30pm:The City of London Corporation has won its high court bid to evict anti-capitalist protesters from outside St Paul's Cathedral. More details soon ...

2.34pm: A spokesman for Occupy London has just contacted me to say it is "very likely" they will appeal against the judgment.

2.37pm: "No one has doubted the cause, the sincerity or the passion" of the Occupy London protesters, the judge says, reports Tom Parmenter of Sky News. Mr Justice Lindblom says he recognises that his decision will be disappointing for the defendants.

He pays tribute to the way Occupy London have conducted themselves in this case. But the tents still have to go.

2.44pm: James Albury of Occupy London says the judge says the City is entitled to remove the tents from "areas one and two" around the cathedral (the red areas on this map - the small green area belongs to St Paul's Cathedral).

Map of St Paul's Cathedral showing areas in red and green the Corporation of London says protesters must leave. The red area belongs to the Corporation of London, the green area to St Paul’s. public domain

3.02pm: The judge is back. He says the City gave the demonstrators "an ample opportunity to remove the protest camp" without time and money being spent on legal action, Caroline Davies reports. A lawyer for the City says it is the Corporation's "sincere and genuine" hope that the protesters will leave "with dignity" and with no need for enforcement.

3.05pm: The judgment gives the City the power to remove any tents that are not voluntarily removed, Caroline Davies reports.

3.06pm: The Press Association has just filed quite a bit on today's ruling.

The judge gave his ruling in a jam-packed courtroom and went on to read a summary of his lengthy judgment, before adjourning, the news agency reports.

There was good-natured chanting from protesters after he left the court.

Further argument on an application to appeal and a stay pending will follow shortly.

He had told the court that there were a number of "powerful considerations" pointing to the outcome the City wanted.

And in my judgment, when the balance is struck, the factors for granting relief in this case easily outweigh the factors against. The extent and duration of the obstruction of the highway, and the public nuisance inherent in that obstruction, would itself warrant making an order for possession and granting injunctive and declaratory relief.

So too would the effect of the camp on the Article 9 [of the European convention on human rights, providing a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion] rights of worshippers in the cathedral. So would the effect on visits to the cathedral. So would the other private nuisance caused to the church. So would the planning harm to which I have referred. Adding all of these things together, one has, I think, an unusually persuasive case on the positive side of the balance.

He said that the proposed interference with the protesters' rights was "entirely lawful and justified" as well as necessary and proportionate.

It was the least intrusive way in which to meet the pressing social need not to permit the camp to remain, and struck a fair balance between the needs of the community and the individuals concerned so as not to impose an excessive burden on them.

Withholding relief at this stage would plainly be wrong. The freedoms and rights of others, the interests of public health and public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime, and the need to protect the environment of this part of the City of London all demand the remedy which the court's orders will bring.

He said that the City's decision to take legal action was "neither precipitate nor ill-considered".

I am satisfied that the City had no sensible choice but to do what it has. Conscious of its duties under statute, it gave the defendants an ample opportunity to remove the protest camp without the need for time and money to be spent in legal proceedings. It has, I believe, behaved both responsibly and fairly throughout.

Whilst I recognise that this outcome will be disappointing to the defendants, I wish to pay tribute to all who participated in the hearing for the courteous and helpful way in which they conducted themselves.

3.18pm: A lawyer for the City is speaking in the courtroom now, Caroline Davies reports. She says she wants the protesters to remove all tents, bedding and so on "forthwith". The City is also seeking an order prohibiting the erection of further tents and other structures.

3.20pm: The City of London has just put a statement up on its website.

Stuart Fraser, the City of London Corporation's policy chairman, said after the court judgment:

We took this action to clear the tents and equipment at St Paul's. We hope the protesters will now remove the tents voluntarily. If not, and subject to any appeal proceedings, we will be considering enforcement action.

Lawful protests are a regular part of City life, but tents, equipment and increasingly, quite a lot of mess and nuisance, is not what a highway is for and the public generally is losing out – as evidence before the court made clear.

The statement also says the City's planning and transportation committee will meet on 31 January to consider the judgment.

3.27pm: Some Occupiers, using the Occupy London Twitter account (not the official OccupyLSX account) are considering their options:

We're asking you twitter: Which one: #PlanA - stay & resist #PlanB - devolve & spread to each borough of London or #PlanC find a new target

3.28pm:James Albury of Occupy London reports than John Cooper QC is pointing out that Tammy Samede, one of the named defendants, should not be held responsible for any protesters who do not comply with the court order. The judge agrees – she is responsible only for her own actions.

3.30pm:James Albury of Occupy London says the Corporation has told the court they will give the protesters three days to leave before enforcing the orders – if the camp does not seek to appeal.

3.33pm: The protesters' QC has asked for permission to appeal, and asked for there to be no enforcement of the eviction order for seven days, Caroline Davies reports.

3.43pm: At St Paul's, my colleague David Shariatmadari reports quiet dismay from protesters. With many activists a short walk away at the high court, the camp lacked its usual bustle and energy, he reports.

Nathan, 27, a long-haired Texan who works as the camp's librarian, was sanguine.

It's something I expected really, because we can't claim ownership of the land by title, so that's already really heavy against us. But I don't think it's a problem. I think it'll only give us strength, because we'll be forced to adapt … Globally, Occupy is getting more and more acceptance every day. People are seeing why we're here – that we're here for economic equality.

An anonymous man in his thirties, whose tent sits directly opposite the great sweep of stairs up to the Cathedral's west entrance, echoed this lack of surprise:

Obviously my reaction's disappointment but I think we sort of expected it to be honest. You know, you're dealing with the financial big boys. It won't be the end of the movement. These occupations have taken place in over 3,000 cities across the world, on all continents. Just because it's been knocked back here, it doesn't matter. The movement will keep going … We don't know what'll happen [regarding eviction]. At this point it's still early in the game, but we've been peaceful from the start and we'll be peaceful at the end.

Ray, 27, who was holding the fort at the camp's "front desk" – its information centre – was incensed.

I'm not happy with what's happened - that we're going to get evicted from here. A lot of people here are homeless. If the court wants us evicted, they'll have to get the police down and the bailiffs.

3.44pm: Back in the courtroom, the Corporation's lawyer is saying the City is only prepared to put off eviction for three days to allow any Occupy appeal application, Caroline Davies reports.

Photograph: Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images

3.48pm: The Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres (left), commenting on the ruling, said:

Whatever now happens as a result of today's judgment, the protest has brought a number of vital themes to prominence. These are themes that the St Paul's Institute remains committed to exploring and, now through London Connection, we want to ensure they continue to have a voice.

Bishops cannot have all the answers to what are complex economic problems. What we can do, however, is broker communications and make sure that a proper connection between finance and its ethical and moral context is found.

4.02pm: John Cooper QC, speaking for Occupy London, is arguing that tents should be allowed at St Paul's during the daytime, Caroline Davies reports. Cooper says the City had previously accepted that the protesters could return each day, pitch their tents, and depart each night.

4.04pm: Dr Giles Fraser, who resigned as canon chancellor of St Paul's rather than see the protesters evicted by force, said in a statement: "This judgment is disappointing. In a world where there is such a gap between rich and poor, the voice of protest needs continually to be heard. The church must not be seen to side with the 1% and against the 99%."

4.07pm: The judge has rejected Occupy's application to appeal and the idea of tents being present during the day but not at night, Caroline Davies reports.

4.09pm: But the protesters can seek leave to appeal directly from the court of appeal, the judge says.

The judge is now going to decide how much time Occupy London will be given to seek their appeal before their tents are removed, Caroline Davies reports.

4.15pm: Liberal Democrat MEP for London Sarah Ludford has welcomed the decision. She said:

This decision is the right one. Protests should not morph into tent cities. The right to protest is too precious to be undermined by long-term encampments which disrupt normal life to an unacceptable extent, beyond the inevitable and legitimate inconvenience of a one-off demo.

I'm very pleased that the coalition, at Liberal Democrat instigation, has delivered on its promise to restore the right to demonstrate in Parliament Square. It was an affront to democracy that the Labour government removed a right that is at the heart of our parliamentary system.

I hope that protesters will now leave peacefully and that we won't see violent evictions on the steps of St Paul's.

4.19pm: The judge has allowed Occupy London seven working days to seek leave to appeal.

4.21pm: So there will be no enforcement of the eviction order before Friday 27 January at 4pm, while the City waits to see if the protesters appeal to the court of appeal.

4.22pm: If the appeal is sought and the court of appeal rejects it before Friday 27 January, then enforcement of the eviction will take place before then, Caroline Davies reports.

4.23pm: The Press Association has been talking to protesters outside St Paul's. One, wearing a black hood and white mask, held up a sign reading: "Whatever. We have won."

Elijah Olig, 18, from Australia, said:

I don't react negatively or positively to it, it has come about after a long string of verdicts and either way we are going to be moving on. We have Finsbury Square and UBS, there are multiple places where we reside already. Whatever happens, we will do something positive. A victory or a loss wouldn't change anything about the movement. We've already achieved what we set out to accomplish, which is to get the conversation topic on people's tongues and raise awareness. We are trying to get our community back together and we have still accomplished something.

Asked if he thought the eviction of the churchyard would mirror the violent scenes seen at Zuccotti Park in New York, Olig said:

I wouldn't see it getting violent here. This is one of London's most common marketplaces and I think it would be a really rash move for the police to come in and kettle us in front of families and children ... We would peacefully resist but not with violence.

Jake Lampard, 16, from Leyton, east London, said:

I hope we can find places to stay or ways around it but I think they want to get rid of us before the Olympics. We are not a real threat to the government but they need a pretty city when everyone comes to see us. This is what I stand for and I think if I sat at home doing nothing about it, then I wouldn't have any morals or any backbone.

4.27pm: Occupy London's James Albury reports that the judge thanked everyone and drew proceedings to a close, paying tribute to the courtesy and helpfulness of all involved. Albury adds:

The grounds of appeal are whether the injunction and the actions taken by the Corporation are proportionate or "over the top", he says.

Samede is asked if the protesters will "go peacefully" if the eviction order is enforced. She says she will not answer for anyone else.

4.32pm: That was John Cooper QC speaking for the protesters there. They are set to appeal tomorrow to the court of appeal.

4.48pm: William Densham, partner at international law firm Eversheds, whose team were involved in the Parliament Square evictions, has sent this comment:

The eviction of the Occupy London protesters from outside St Paul's Cathedral has always been inevitable. Increasingly legally savvy protesters have been able to play the system in various ways to delay today's verdict but it has ultimately just been a matter of time before the City of London Corporation succeeded.

What happens next is less clear and if the protesters are as determined as their actions imply then today's decision will not come as the blow to their campaign that might be expected. It is likely that even if forcibly evicted, the St Paul's veterans will simply set up camp elsewhere, starting the whole process over again. Even the Paternoster Square, Broadgate and Canary Wharf injunctions may now have lapsed so they might try there first.

The Occupy camp outside St Paul's has for the last three months given a voice to the frustrations felt by many over the current economic situation. The protest has forced issues up the agenda and into the news, such as high executive pay. It's a pity a completely peaceful protest drawing attention to the inequality in our society is not allowed to continue.

The Occupy camp may have lost their court case but they have succeeded in changing the debate – they have drawn attention to ideas such as the introduction of Tobin tax, abolishing the City of London and sensible banking regulation. When I joined the camp I met articulate young people concerned about the current economic situation with ideas for a different way of doing things. The mayor has made some harsh and unfair criticisms of the Occupy protesters, and I believe that we should allow this camp to remain rather than stifle protest because it's inconvenient.

5.01pm:Here is a summary of today's key events:

• The City of London Corporation won its high court bid to force the eviction of the Occupy London protesters from their camp in the lee of St Paul's Cathedral in central London.

• Mr Justice Lindblom allowed the protesters to appeal to the court of appeal and gave them seven days to do so – eviction would begin if they did not appeal by next Friday, 27 January, at 4pm. John Cooper QC, speaking for the protesters outside the court after the ruling, said they would appeal tomorrow. "Onwards and upwards for Occupy," said Tammy Samede, the principal named defendant in the case.

•Lindblom said he ruled in favour of the City because of the extent and duration of the objection of the highway at St Paul's, and the public nuisance it caused; the effect on worshippers and visitors; the private nuisance to the church; and the "planning harm". Each of these things individually would be grounds to evict the protesters, he said – taken together they made up "an unusually persuasive case". Any interference with the protesters' rights in evicting them was "entirely lawful and justified", as well as necessary and proportionate.

•Grounds for appeal will be whether the injunction and the actions taken by the Corporation are proportionate, Cooper said.

• Stuart Fraser of the Corporation said: "Lawful protests are a regular part of City life, but tents, equipment and increasingly, quite a lot of mess and nuisance, is not what a highway is for and the public generally is losing out."

• Nathan, 27, a protester at St Paul's, said: "It won't be the end of the movement. These occupations have taken place in over 3,000 cities across the world, on all continents. Just because it's been knocked back here, it doesn't matter. The movement will keep going … We don't know what'll happen [regarding eviction]. At this point it's still early in the game, but we've been peaceful from the start and we'll be peaceful at the end."